Madras High Court
S.Gayathri vs P.Madhan on 3 February, 2023
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.22967 of 2022
S.Gayathri .. Petitioner
vs
P.Madhan .. Respondent
Prayer: Transfer CMP is filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code,
to order withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.189 of 2022 on the file of the Principal
Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ponneri and transfer the same to the file of Hon'ble
Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh Babu
For Respondent : Mr.J.Senthamilarasu
ORDER
The transfer petition is filed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.189 of 2022
on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ponneri and transfer
the same to the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge,
Kallakurichi.
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
solemnized on 27.11.2020 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to
misunderstanding, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is
unemployed and is taking care of her one and a half year old child and is
residing along with her parents. While so, she may not be in a position to
spend, travel and contest the case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that the
respondent has no serious objection in considering the transfer of the case.
5. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the
matters of matrimonial cases, are well settled through the three decisions of
the High Court of Madras, in the following cases:-
(i) The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court
of Madras in W.A.No.1181 of 2009, dated 09.07.2010,
wherein in paragraphs-21 and 22, it has been observed as
under:-
“21. The domicile or citizenship of the opposite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
party is immaterial in a case like this. In case the
marriage was solemnized under Hindu Law marital
relationship is governed by the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act. Therefore, Section 19 has to be given a
purposeful interpretation. It is the residence of the wife,
which determines the question of jurisdiction, in case
the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the wife.
22. While considering a provision like Section 19
(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the objects and
reasons which prompted the parliament to incorporate
such a provision has also to be taken note of. Sub
Clause (iii-a) was inserted in Section 19 with a specific
purpose. Experience is the best teacher. The
Government found the difficulties faced by women in
the matter of initiation of matrimonial proceedings. The
report submitted by the Law Commission as well as
National Commission for Women, underlying the need
for such amendment so as to enable the women to
approach the nearest jurisdictional court to redress
their matrimonial grievances, were also taken note of
by the Government. Therefore such a beneficial
provision meant for the women of our Country should
be given a meaningful interpretation by Courts.”
(ii) In yet another case in Tr.CMP.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
30.08.2006, the High Court of Madras has considered the following
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-
“(1) In the case of Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh
Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255], when the wife pleaded
that she was unable to bear the traveling expenses and
even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme
Court ordered transfer of proceedings.
(2) In the case of Geeta Heera vs. Harish
Chander Heera [(2000) 10 SCC 304], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife
has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be
considered.
(3) In the case of Lalita A.Ranga vs. Ajay
Champalal Ranga [(2000) 9 SCC 355], the wife has
filed a petition to transfer the proceedings initiated by
the husband for divorce, at Bombay. The place of
residence of the wife was at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In that
case, the petitioner is having a small child and that she
pleaded difficulty in going all the way from Jaipur to
Bombay to contest the proceedings from time to time.
Considering the distance and the difficulties faced by
the wife, the Supreme Court has allowed the transfer
petition.
(4) In a decision in Archana Singh vs. Surendra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
Bahadur Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 395], the wife has
sought for transfer of matrimonial proceedings and a
divorce petition has been filed by the respondent's
husband at Baikunthpur to be transferred to Allahabad,
where the petitioner's wife was residing, on the ground
that it would be difficult for her to undertake such long
distance journey, particularly in circumstances, in
which she finds that the proceedings under 5 Section
125 Cr.P.C. was already pending before the Family
Court, Allahabad. Considering the difficulties faced by
the wife and also the long distance journey, the
Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to order
transfer of the proceedings to Allahabad.”
(iii) In a decision made in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, dated
03.03.2011, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, wherein in
paragraph-18, it has been observed as below:-
“18. It is true that section 19 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of
proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this
amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference to
the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the
husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she
resides. The intention of the Legislator is to safe-guard
the interest and rights of the women, who are being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special
preference conferred under section 19(iii)(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck
vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable
cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she
resides.”
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the H.M.O.P.No.189 of
2022, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge,
Ponneri stands transferred to the file of the learned Principal Sub-Ordinate
Judge, Kallakurichi.
7. The Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ponneri is directed to transmit
the case papers within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
8. With these directions, this transfer petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be
no order as to costs.
Index : Yes / No 03.02.2023
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
drm
To
1. The Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Ponneri.
2. The Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Kallakurichi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(drm)
Tr.C.M.P.No.1349 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.22967 of 2022
03.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
